Feedback

Bonner V United Parcel Service Inc

          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                        
           FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO                         
                   EASTERN DIVISION                                  

DESMOND BONNER,                                                           

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                            Civil Action 2:25-cv-394               
                              Judge Michael H. Watson                
                              Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson    

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC,                                                

          Defendant.                                                 

                        ORDER                                        

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendant’s Answer is before the Court.  
(Doc. 11).                                                                
Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint on April 14, 2025.  (Doc. 1).  Defendant United Parcel 
Service, Inc. (“UPS”) filed its answer on May 12.  (Doc. 7).  A little over a month later, Plaintiff 
filed a motion seeking to file a reply to Defendant’s answer.  (Doc. 11).  As support, Plaintiff states 
that a reply is necessary “to aid the Court in understanding the disputed legal and factual issues, 
particularly as they relate to UPS’s reliance on after-acquired evidence.”  (Id. at 2).  His proposed 
reply includes “specific responses to [Defendant’s] affirmative defenses,” and a “clarification on 
caselaw and Plaintiff’s understanding.”  (Id. at 4–5 (cleaned up)).       
A reply to a defendant’s answer is not a proper pleading under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 7 unless ordered by the Court.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (listing allowed pleadings)).  In other 
words, “[b]y the plain language of the rule, a reply to an answer is not appropriate unless ordered 
by the court.”  Fisher v. Cataldi, No. 1:16-cv-605, 2016 WL 6208582, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 
2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7)).                                   
Here, the Court did not order Plaintiff to file a reply to Defendant’s answer.  Under the 
Federal Rules, a reply is not allowed.  Plaintiff’s desires to respond to Defendant’s affirmative 
defenses and provide caselaw to support his claims are more appropriately brought before the 
Court in summary judgment briefing.  For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED.   
IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                    

Date:   July 22, 2025              /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson                 
                              KIMBERLY A. JOLSON                     
                              UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE